By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kain_kusanagi said:
theprof00 said:

>_> One would think maybe that would prompt you to go back and read the two posts, but apparently not.

(for the sake of brevity, Cgi only thinks the purposely misleading title is harsh, but the article is fine, and you agree that if someone is mislead by the title it would appear harsh, but the article is fine)


No, I disagreed with CGI that the title was harsh. I don't think the title is harsh at all. I did say that it could be viewed incorectly to be harsh. My point is that the title is fine.

Then you would be objectively wrong.